Nothing after Chalitza or Yibum

Yevamot (5:3) | Yisrael Bankier | 7 years ago

The fifth perek discusses many cases with one or more yevamim and
yevamot involving different combinations and sequences of yibum (or
bi’ah), chalitza, get and maamar. When the Mishnah (5:3)
discusses a number of combinations that include chalitzah it ends by
explaining that “there is nothing after chalitzah.” We shall try to
understand this principle.

The Gemara discusses how this principle applies to case where after
chalitza was performed, the yabam performed a maamer to the
yevama or the tzara.1R’ Yehuda explains that the Mishnah must
be according to R’ Akiva. After chalitza is performed, there is a
negative prohibition of marrying (what was) the yevama.2 Since R’
Akiva maintains that kidushin cannot take affect when it would
violate a negative prohibition, it explains why a maamar that follows
chalitza is ineffective. According to the Chachachim who maintain
that kidushin in such a case would be affective, a maamar that
followed chalitza would require a get.

The Gemara also cites the opinion of Rebbi who, like the
Chachamim, maintains that kiddushin would be affective even if it
violated a negative prohibition. Nevertheless Rebbi differentiates
between how the maamar was given. If it was for the sake of marriage,
then it would be affective. If it was given for the purpose of yibum,
under the assumption that there was still a zika and yibum could
still be performed, then such a maamar that followed yibum would
have no affect.

The Bartenura adds that if biah was performed first, i.e. a valid
yibum, then there is “nothing after biah” (as stated in 5:6). The
Tosfot Yom Tov explains that this is also only according to R’
Akiva. The reason is that in a case where there are two yevamot and
one or more brothers, after yibum there is a prohibition against
marrying the tzarah. He explains that according to the Rosh and the
Rif it is a prohibition as implied by the positive commandment
(“issur aseh”) to “build his brother’s house” – one house not two.
According to the Tosfot there is a negative prohibition. That being
the case, only according to the R’ Akiva would a maamar not have an
affect on the tzarah after yibum, where as according to the
Chachamim a get would be required.

R’ Akiva Eiger notes that according to the Rosh’s understanding that
it is an issur aseh, the later Mishnah (5:6) implies that
kiddushin does not take hold even in the face of an issur aseh.3
The Tifferet Yisrael (13 & 29) however appears to understand that when
the Mishnah teaches there that “there is nothing after yibum” it is
only referring to yavama to which yibum was performed. In other
words, there is no longer a zika. With respect to the tzarahowever,
there is only an issuraseh and kidushin would be affective.

1 The Rambam notes that in a case where there are two yevamot
and two brothers and one brother performed a get to one yevama while
the other brother followed with chalitza to the other, the story is
not over. Thetzara is free to go even though the chalitza is defined
as pesula (since yibum was not possible in that situation). The
first yevama however would require chalitza from both brothers in
order to be free to remarry.

2While there is a negative prohibition after chalitza between the
choletz and the chalutza, there is a debate in the Gemara (10b)
regarding the prohibition between choletz and the tzarah or the
other brothers and either of the yevamot. R’ Yochanan maintains the
prohibition is still a lav while Reish Lakish maintains that it is
an issur karet– the issurerva of marrying one’s brother’s wife.

3R’ AkivaEiger uses this understanding to raise a difficult on a
Tosfot. See inside for details.